When do the insipid performances stop

[Sir Why You Little 37,130]

Just now, mauriesy said:

Insipid means "weak". Yes, they were outplayed and jumped at the start. But they weren't "insipid".

But whatever floats your boat as a keyboard warrior.

The first Q was weak. AFL is a brutal game. Mentally an Physically

It's time that the MFC realized this on a weekly basis and not just on special occasions. 

Watch the '89 GF again 

[Chris 2,892]

On 5/21/2017 at 9:17 PM, Luther said:

Anyone have examples in recent memory of sides who got agonisingly close in plenty of games but just fell short, and then went onto 'click' the next season and win a flag? I need some reassurance.

Geelong in 06 kind of did. They had a few tight loses, a few big wins, and a few massive loses. It was a real rollercoaster of a year for them. Hawthorn also lost 4 games in the first half of 2015 by 10 points or less (they didn't win the flag the next year though

[hemingway 7,631]

17 minutes ago, mauriesy said:

Insipid means "weak". Yes, they were outplayed and jumped at the start. But they weren't "insipid".

But whatever floats your boat as a keyboard warrior.

Agreed.

We have definitely improved and there are good reasons why we lost. 

The intensity of the game is such that it is difficult to maintain an edge over the opponent every week. Look at all results to-date. Virtually every side has had trouble maintaining the mental and physical edge every week. Crows supporters tell me that the Demons appeared ready for the battle at the start of the game, whereas the Crows did not. A week later this edge was lost and regained for the respective sides. 

Anyone who has competed at a highly competitive level in a sport knows how difficult it is to maintain mental and physical intensity from one weekend to the next. Coaches try and get their charges to "peak" at different times during a sporting season, but particularly for championships and finals. They understand that during the season there are going to be good and not so good performances and the challenge is to maintain a level of consistency and to reduce the variability of results. There are champion individuals and teams that can do enough to keep winning but in most cases there are going to be wins and losses. 

We are still not halfway through the season. Hopefully, we will regain some players that will make a difference. At this stage, I am still confident that our improved performances will turn into wins.  

[ding 5,126]

5 hours ago, hardtack said:

I get the feeling the game against the Crows really drained a few of them and in particular Watts who has been taking on a hell of a lot since Spencer's demise; he looked knackered from almost the first bounce.  Add to that the fact that they were competing against one of the best rucks in the comp, it certainly didn't help.  For me, we really lost this game as a result of playing TMac up forward for that first quarter... I think that probably cost us goals.  In fact, that move surprised me as I seem to recall Goodwin saying after the Crows game that it was not something he would do regularly, but that these moves could sometimes take an opposition by surprise if used sparingly (or something along those lines).

I'm just waiting for the day that we can jump out of the blocks from the first bounce and not look back (praying that will be the Queen's Bidet game when my son and I will make it down).

Hard to argue with any of that.

[ding 5,126]

5 hours ago, bandicoot said:

We lost to geelong because Gawn was off for the second half.

we lost to Richmond because spencer didn't play after 1st qtr.

we lost to hawthorn and north because we didn't have a ruckman.

that would have made us 8-1. 

Coulda woulda shoulda.

It is possible to mount equally convincing arguments as to how our opposition could/would/should have beaten us in games we won. You are cherry picking things that may have helped us and conveniently ignoring things that wouldnt.

We are NOT an 8-1 side.Even at full strength. Crazy talk.

I have us winning 6 on the run home. Want to win all of them, but im not some starry eyed kid who believes in fairytales.

[Skuit 10,031]

Remember when we were worried about whether Jack Watts could provide an effective chop-out for Max Gawn, and if Jesse Hogan could carry the forward-line in his absence? When trying to find room for Jake Spencer seemed like a stupid idea, and we argued if Cameron Pedersen should ever play again? What fond memories. Now we have to contend with Watts providing a chop-out for Pedersen, while Weideman leads a forward-line without Watts. Or otherwise Tmac filling-in for Pedo, while brother Oscar holds down the defence.

You can't keep competing at the top level with severe scoliosis. It puts pressure on all the surrounding muscles, and can lead to problems with co-ordination through over-compensation.

[Chook 15,022]

19 minutes ago, Skuit said:

Remember when we were worried about whether Jack Watts could provide an effective chop-out for Max Gawn, and if Jesse Hogan could carry the forward-line in his absence? When trying to find room for Jake Spencer seemed like a stupid idea, and we argued if Cameron Pedersen should ever play again? What fond memories. Now we have to contend with Watts providing a chop-out for Pedersen, while Weideman leads a forward-line without Watts. Or otherwise Tmac filling-in for Pedo, while brother Oscar holds down the defence.

You can't keep competing at the top level with severe scoliosis. It puts pressure on all the surrounding muscles, and can lead to problems with co-ordination through over-compensation.

Also Kent’s no good too.

[Skuit 10,031]

4 minutes ago, Chook said:

Also Kent’s no good too.

Not sure where he fits in the spine-muscle analogy. A bunion?

[Skuit 10,031]

We're not so insipid that we can't overcome a large deficit within a game and draw to within striking distance with full momentum toward the end. We see this often in sport, a valiant comeback and then it runs out of puff. But usually, it's the opposition that dips to allow a comeback and then snaps out of their malaise. Whereas we're the ones under-performing to allow the lead to get out, and then not managing to cinch it when we get on top in a close one.

So hubris, psychological damage, lack of leadership, and immaturity have all been lodged. If you had to choose one of the following then which would it be:

a) we tighten up with our style of game in the clutches? We will be better when we gain more confidence (like say Port in 2014 and storm over the top).

b) persisting with our style of game isn't suited to the clutches? Leaking goals is too damaging and feeds into the former, but we're not well-drilled enough to switch approaches.

 

 

[Demonsone 2,044]

Our biggest losing margin is 29 points.....

Have been in a position to win all of our games....

Whilst very disappointing with playing poorly in some qtrs, hardly call them Insipid...( 2012-2013 totally insipid)

Not making excuses, but all teams this year have gone through slumps, comp very even with only  1 game  difference between position 5th-11 & 2 games between 5th-17

Maybe need to respect other teams ability, lets not forget North kicked 10-0 vs Adelaide in the 1st qtr 2 weeks ago

[Akum 2,660]

This season we could probably have managed with injuries to 5 or 6 mids. Brayshaw & VDB are already out, and we have ANB, Stretch, Ben Ken & even Trengove playing for Casey, all of whom would be handy backups. We could have managed with injuries to a few small defenders too - of those who aren't already in the team there's Melksham*, Harmes, White, and again Trengove, Stretch & ANB.

But we were always going to struggle if we'd lost one of Gawn, Hogan & T-Mac. Not only did we lose 2 out of those 3, but also Gawn's only backup in Spencer.

Yes, we could have done better. But it's not the disaster it could have easily been. We're at least getting ourselves into winnable positions late in every game so far. There's just the next step of hauling yourself over the line once we're in that winning position. For a team that's been so down for so long, it's not surprising that we haven't yet got that right, but that's probably the last element that's going to slot into place.

* Speaking of Melksham, next time we play North, we use Melksham's "extra talents" and put him on Cunnington. And get Lewis to hold regular master classes for the whole list in "unsociable footy".

Edited May 23, 2017 by Akum
Explaining asterisk on "Melksham"

[Akum 2,660]

1 hour ago, Hogan2014 said:

Our biggest losing margin is 29 points.....

Have been in a position to win all of our games....

Whilst very disappointing with playing poorly in some qtrs, hardly call them Insipid...( 2012-2013 totally insipid)

Not making excuses, but all teams this year have gone through slumps, comp very even with only  1 game  difference between position 5th-11 & 2 games between 5th-17

Maybe need to respect other teams ability, lets not forget North kicked 10-0 vs Adelaide in the 1st qtr 2 weeks ago

One thing we do need to do is to expect that other teams aren't just going to play us on our talent.

And anticipate that they will:

* Headhunt the cream of our younger players, namely Oliver, Petracca and Salem, and Hogan when he comes back.

* Take advantage of our lack of talls by holding off the ball (mainly Watts) and blocking (mainly T-Mac, by far our best remaining tall in a contested marking duel)

* See if they can get away with blunting our unbelievable advantage at clearances (where even though we get smashed in hitouts we win the clearances against even the best of midfields) by playing outside the rules. Specifically, they'll try out a blatant illegal act early in the game, and if the umpires don't pay it (and they almost always don't), then they've got us for the rest of the game.

We repeatedly seem surprised that other teams don't want it to be a fair fight. We play such a naive game, especially at the start, and expect the other side to stick to Queensberry rules. We need to do what Jack Dyer used to say: "Retaliate first!"

[Garbo 1,542]

The issue for dees this year and last is we don't know how to play when we are the hunted, we have been the hunter for so long we have forgotten. When we are wining the clearances and getting our hands on the ball more than the opposition we still always look backwards as the first option when we should be pressing the advantage. Every game when we are forced to take risks we look so much better, even if we don't always pull it off it creates random opportunities, when we play it safe and try to massage the ball round the ground we inevitability turn it over or give the opposition time to setup and counter attack.

Edited May 24, 2017 by Garbo

[What 18,810]

Five losses by a combined total of 61 points.  Average losing margin = 12.2 

We havent had an insipid performance yet, not even close.

However if we lose to Gold Coast who are coming off a trip to China where they kicked 4 goals for the entire match, it will be insipid no matter what the margin is.

[John Crow Batty 8,879]

1 hour ago, Petraccattack said:

Five losses by a combined total of 61 points.  Average losing margin = 12.2 

We havent had an insipid performance yet, not even close.

However if we lose to Gold Coast who are coming off a trip to China where they kicked 4 goals for the entire match, it will be insipid no matter what the margin is.

Don't worry there will be those who will bring out arguments, excuses and facts GC are better than us and always have been if we lose. We have been dynamically strong in parts in all games. Leadership and fickle attitude has failed us badly in this topsy turvey season. Unrealistic to expect that we could have won all our games but for sure lack of strong leadership at the finish and sleep starts has cost us 2 or 3 wins. 

Edited May 23, 2017 by america de cali

[Sir Why You Little 37,130]

7 hours ago, Garbo said:

The issue for dees this year and last is we don't know how to play when we are the hunted, we have been the hunter for so long we have forgotten. When we are wining the clearances and getting our getting our hands on the ball more than the opposition we still always look backwards as the first option when we should be pressing the advantage. Every game when we are forced to take risks we look so much better, even if we don't always pull it off it creates random opportunities, when we play it safe and try to massage the ball round the ground we inevitability turn it over or give the opposition time to setup and counter attack.

Spot on Garb

[DubDee 26,117]

3 hours ago, Petraccattack said:

Five losses by a combined total of 61 points.  Average losing margin = 12.2 

We havent had an insipid performance yet, not even close.

However if we lose to Gold Coast who are coming off a trip to China where they kicked 4 goals for the entire match, it will be insipid no matter what the margin is.

losing to north at home is worse than losing to GC in NT IMO

GC are not too bad, and have a better midfield than north

[Cheap Seats 3,310]

8 hours ago, DubDee said:

losing to north at home is worse than losing to GC in NT IMO

GC are not too bad, and have a better midfield than north

I disagree DubD

I think the exact opposite. This is just my opinion I'm not saying you're wrong . 

Norf have bigger bodies which trouble us in the middle. Coupled with our lack of talls and our inability to deal with constant pressure i wasn't surprised ww dropped that game.

Vs GC they are more a front running type and if we hunt them like we did thr adelaide game i expect us to win comfortably.  

Id be more upset with a lack of effort loss v gc then a tough fought loss to Norf 

Edited May 24, 2017 by Unleash Hell

[DubDee 26,117]

2 hours ago, Unleash Hell said:

I disagree DubD

I think the exact opposite. This is just my opinion I'm not saying you're wrong . 

Norf have bigger bodies which trouble us in the middle. Coupled with our lack of talls and our inability to deal with constant pressure i wasn't surprised ww dropped that game.

Vs GC they are more a front running type and if we hunt them like we did thr adelaide game i expect us to win comfortably.  

Id be more upset with a lack of effort loss v gc then a tough fought loss to Norf 

Agree to disagree UH. They are quicker and better skilled. Ablett, swallow, hall, Martin, miller and their talls are quality.  I reckon they'll click soon enough

and they beat cats and hammered Hawks. 

Reckon the game is 50-50 on Sat

[Cheap Seats 3,310]

38 minutes ago, DubDee said:

Agree to disagree UH. They are quicker and better skilled. Ablett, swallow, hall, Martin, miller and their talls are quality.  I reckon they'll click soon enough

and they beat cats and hammered Hawks. 

Reckon the game is 50-50 on Sat

100% Agree

My thoughts were more that we really struggle against teams who put on a lot of pressure around the ball.

Teams like GC are fast and highly skillfull like you said. But like last year if we can get first hands on the ball break clear and put pressure on GC when they have the ball I think we have the advantage.

But I totally agree it's a 50/50. But personally I will be more upset if we let GC just free flow then the loss last week which was easily predictable for a lot of reasons